# US Regulatory Shift: Why "Most Tokens Are Not Securities" Matters So Much?

On March 17, 2026, the U.S. SEC issued an interpretive document regarding the application of federal securities laws to crypto assets, clearly presenting a new token taxonomy. Under this framework, crypto assets are categorized into five buckets: digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities. The assets that remain within the core regulatory scope of securities laws are primarily digital securities, which are tokenized traditional securities. At the same time, the document specifically discusses a more critical issue: under what circumstances a crypto asset that is not itself a security could fall under the “investment contract” regulation due to its issuance and sale methods, and under what conditions it can be exempt from such regulation. The official release also clarifies long-standing gray-area topics such as airdrops, protocol mining, protocol staking, and wrapping.

Many people’s first reaction to this news is “positive.” But what’s truly important is not whether prices will immediately rise, but that U.S. regulation is shifting from a vague suppression of “most tokens might be securities” to a structured management approach that classifies based on function and economic substance first, then assesses whether the trading structure triggers securities laws. This means regulatory logic is moving from “assuming problems first” to “defining what you are first, then judging how you sell, raise funds, and promise returns.” For an industry long suppressed by uncertainty, this shift is far more significant than daily price fluctuations.

Why is this so important? Because over the past few years, the biggest systemic risk in the U.S. crypto industry has never been bear markets or hacks, but regulatory uncertainty. Projects don’t know whether their tokens are commodities, securities, or something else; trading platforms are unsure whether listing tokens, matching trades, providing staking, or yield products might suddenly cross legal boundaries related to securities issuance, brokerage, or exchanges; investors are unsure whether they are buying freely tradable crypto assets or risk packages that could be deemed illegal offerings in the future. When regulatory uncertainty is too high, the market naturally discounts valuations, as all participants must reserve risk premiums for “potential future liability.”

The core value of this new interpretive document is that it attempts to separate “asset itself” from “sale method.” Simply put, a token being not a security does not necessarily mean that fundraising and promotion around it are safe; conversely, a token that was sold as an investment contract at one stage does not mean it will always be a security. This is a crucial change because it shifts the regulatory focus from “permanently labeling tokens” to “considering the current economic reality, promises, and management efforts.” This approach aligns more closely with the original logic of the Howey test and reflects the fact that on-chain assets will evolve with network maturity, use cases, and decentralization levels.

The biggest beneficiaries will be three groups:

First, mainstream blockchain assets and functional tokens. When digital commodities, tools, and collectibles are clearly placed within a non-security framework, the regulatory positioning of assets like BTC and ETH becomes more stable. Many tokens with clear use cases, governance, and network consumption scenarios will also have clearer boundaries than before. For the market, this reduces the tail risk of being suddenly classified as securities.

Second, trading platforms and intermediary infrastructure. Once the expectation that “most tokens are not securities” becomes institutionalized, key issues such as listing approval, trade matching, market making, custody, and research coverage can be redesigned within a clearer compliance framework. Previously, many platforms didn’t dare to do certain things at scale; now, with clearer boundaries, their willingness to invest in capital, technology, and licenses will increase, lowering the discount rate for infrastructure in the industry.

Third, innovative projects and financing markets within the U.S. The SEC Chair Paul Atkins also proposed on the same day that institutions should consider launching safe harbor or startup exemptions for crypto startups, allowing projects to obtain more suitable exemptions within certain funding limits or timeframes. This is significant because it indicates that regulation is not only about clarifying jurisdiction but also about bringing fundraising, startups, and token distribution back into U.S. legal territory. Many projects previously chose overseas markets not necessarily because the U.S. market was unimportant, but because of regulatory uncertainty; now, regulation seems to be trying to bring this innovation back home.

However, this should not be interpreted as “issuing tokens will be safe from now on.” On the contrary, the interpretive document also maintains clear red lines: if you emphasize common enterprise, highlight others’ management efforts, or promote future price appreciation during sales, you could still be deemed to trigger an investment contract. In other words, the asset category is clearer, but old issues like fundraising rhetoric, return promises, and secondary market expectations have not disappeared. Regulation is not gone; it has shifted from a “broad net” to “targeting specific arrangements with securities attributes.”

Stablecoins are another important area. Atkins’ speech classifies payment stablecoins under the GENIUS Act as not being securities, but this does not mean all “stablecoin-like” assets are automatically safe. The truly complex and problematic assets are often not plain payment stablecoins but those embedded with yield, layered structures, re-pledging, reserve operations, or significant financial engineering. While the regulation provides a relatively clear pathway for payment stablecoins, it does not give a free pass to all “assets that look like stablecoins.”

More importantly for traders and content creators, this shift may have a deeper impact on market structure than on short-term prices. The short-term market may not immediately reprice the entire industry based on this document, but in the medium to long term, three changes are likely: first, more U.S. institutions will be willing to continue research, market making, custody, derivatives, and token-related activities; second, project teams will focus more on token functionality, distribution pathways, and legal structures rather than just narratives; third, the market will gradually shift from “regulatory arbitrage” to “capital efficiency competition under clearer rules.” In other words, the real change is not that a coin will jump 20% tomorrow, but that the industry is moving from a wild growth phase into a period of institutionalized filtering.

Of course, it’s important to clarify that this is not full legislation nor a one-time solution. The SEC explicitly states in the official document that this interpretation is based on their current understanding of market structure and trading features, and they are seeking public comments. Future refinements, revisions, or expansions are possible. In other words, this is a major shift in regulatory stance, not an irreversible final law. It can significantly improve expectations but has not yet fully codified all disputes into law. For the crypto industry, this is a big step but not the last.

So why is the statement that “most tokens are not securities” so important? Because it’s not just an emotional positive; it’s the U.S. finally recognizing a reality: not all on-chain assets should be forcibly shoehorned into 20th-century securities frameworks. Once this reality is accepted by regulators, the valuation anchors, project design logic, exchange compliance methods, and institutional entry pace will all change. The true market significance lies not in “the crypto world winning,” but in the key variable that influences industry development—uncertainty—finally beginning to decline. For a market still in early institutionalization, the reduction of uncertainty is itself the most scarce positive signal.